[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906161815.GE2448@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:18:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time
quiescent-state race
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:21:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 11:19 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I tried that, and got a surprisingly large set of conflicts. Ah, OK,
> > the problem is that breaking up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions
> > did enough code motion to defeat straightforward rebasing. Is there
> > some way to tell "git rebase" about such code motion, or would this
> > need to be carried out carefully by hand?
>
> The alternative is doing that rebase by hand and in the process make
> that code movement patch (6) obsolete by making patches (1) and (3)
> introduce the code in the final form :-)
>
> Yay for less patches :-)
Actually, my original intent was that patches 1-6 be one patch.
The need to locate a nasty bug caused me to split it up. So the best
approach is to squash patches 1-6 together with the related patches.
Thanx, paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists